Hylotheism – Life As a Slide Show
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HYLOTHEISM – LIFE AS A SLIDE SHOW Jarmo Tarkki Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary California Lutheran University It is fair to state that religion and God do go together, although it has often been noted that of the major world religions Buddhists do not worship gods or a God and in Jainism there is no need for a creator God because the universe is believed to be eternal. While all religions do not have a clear concept of the divine or God, all beliefs in God are nestled in religion. There is no doubt that the word “god” does exist. But does “God” exist is another question. Does the word “god” denote an object or being (realism) or is it a name for the highest values or dimensions of human existence (non-realism or anti- realism, e.g., Ludwig Feuerbach)? Traditional theology has been quite preoccupied with the attributes of God because God’s being, whatever it might be, was outside of human comprehension anyway. The word “god,” in Wittgensteinian terms, is an open-ended term; it has no one particular meaning until it is specified in a clearly defined matrix. Thus the tetragrammaton, YHWH, is one of the religious theonyms used by the Israelites to describe the national God of Israel. In this matrix “God” has a particular meaning, although over time that meaning has changed considerably. Hylotheism is a term used by Alvin J. Reines to describe his own understanding of “God.” While the term is used occasionally by others to denote various forms of pantheism and panentheism, Reines’ use of hylotheism has a very specific meaning. First I wish to present a mental “God-map” to illustrate where hylotheism is placed in relation to other interpretations. There are four categories under which historic expressions of the divine can be classified: theosupernaturalism, theopanism, theonaturalism and atheonomatism. 1. Theosupernaturalism In theosupernaturalism God is generally conceived as a person, a self-conscious being separate from the universe, external to the creation. Because the creator God is not part of the creation, there is absolutely nothing positive we can ever know about this God. Everything that we know, including knowledge itself, ideas, imagination, fantasies, dreams are part of the universe or the totality of the creation. Therefore, by definition, any ideas that we may have about this God are Westar Fall 2014 Tarkki: Hylotheism 20 something other than the true, utterly unknowable creator God, who is outside of any human experience. According to apophatic or negative theology the only things we know about God are descriptions of what god is not. We could, e.g., state that God is not not-wise, but we could not say that God is wise because we have no way of imagining what divine, external to the creation, wisdom might be. To say that a wall is blind is meaningless because walls do not have the potentiality of seeing anything. To say that God is wise would be analogous to saying that walls are blind. Logically this does not make much sense and therefore apophatic theology at times seems funny, which it is – but it is fun. Johannes Scottus Eriugena (c. 800-c. 877) was much influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius of Areopagite (late 5th or early 6th century), a very influential theologian and philosopher, whom Thomas Aquinas alone reportedly quoted over 1700 times. Eriugena’s translation of Dionysius’ work, Corpus Dionysii, a gift given to Charles the Bald’s father, Louis the Pious by Michael the Stammerer in 827, rekindled interest in apophatic theology in the Middle Ages. Dionysius’ influence is clearly present in Eriugena’s statement that summarizes apophatic theology succinctly: “We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being.” Maimonides (1138-1204), arguably the greatest Jewish philosopher of the medieval period, concluded his own meditations on apophatic theology claiming that we have understood the term “God” properly if and when the word “God” is uttered, absolutely nothing comes to our mind. I prefer this theology because I have not been able to figure out on my own what the term God actually means. Perhaps, at least in the Maimonidean sense, I have come closer to understanding what the true “God” is truly like when I continue to become less and less knowledgeable about the true God. Lloyd Geering stated essentially the same thing: “The God that is known is an idol. The God who can be defined is no God.” Interestingly, God defined as totally separate from the universe, cannot exist, and cannot be by definition a being like we are. Existence is an attribute that can be predicated only of the creation, just as all beings are part of the creation. Thus God is not an existent being, but something utterly different. What some thinkers, e.g., Thomas Aquinas, have stated is that we cannot say that God exists but we can say, God is. Apophatic theology has also gained meaningful popularity in postmodern theology. At least it gives the appearance of being sophisticated in Westar Fall 2014 Tarkki: Hylotheism 21 spite of the fact that we are attempting to describe the indescribable. It reminds me of talking about Kant’s “das Ding an sich,” the thing-in-itself that is unknowable. Should we take Wittgenstein seriously and conclude “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen?”1 Theosupernaturalism among the Israelites started as polytheism, belief that there are many gods. Over time polytheism evolved into henotheism, admission that there are many gods but only one tribal god is considered to be supreme. The first commandment is an expression of this phase of the evolution in the understanding of the divine. Belief in one God, monotheism, developed during the postexilic period, during the time of the 2nd temple (538 BCE onwards). Monotheistic God is a person, a self-conscious being who performs miracles at will. Miracles can also be specifically requested by true believers. Using priests, saints or the Virgin Mary for this is believed to be advantageous. Monotheism developed into theistic absolutism, i.e., God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. This is the concept that exposes itself to many problems. The most challenging one is omnipotency. Can God create a rock that is so large that he cannot lift it up? Regardless how the question is answered, God of theistic absolutism is in trouble. A second major challenge is the problem of theodicy: whatever happens must be good because God is omnibenevolent (all-good). Therefore, whatever God wills must be good, and because God is omnipotent, whatever happens must be good, and because God is omniscient, God is well aware of the goodness of what is willed. So all things that appear to us as evil must, in fact, be good. If we were able to identify E.S. Brightman’s dysteleological surd, something that is so inherently and intrinsically evil that absolutely no good can conceivable emerge out of it, then theistic absolutism would be refuted. This view, theistic absolutism, is successfully challenged by the “four horsemen” of modern atheism: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. While they all do a great service to modern theology by debunking theistic absolutism, we must keep in mind that few, if any serious modern theologians have attempted to defend theistic absolutism as described by the four horseman, for the exact reasons they present. 1 . Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, , #7. Westar Fall 2014 Tarkki: Hylotheism 22 2. Theonaturalism God is conceived, as above, separate from the universe, as the creator of the natural universe or is an essential part of processes that bring the natural universe into existence. While God can be conceived of as a person or impersonally, there are no miracles. Natural laws govern the universe without divine interruptions. Certain forms of deism and hylotheism are examples of theonaturalism. Deism emerged during the Enlightenment as a more rational and more justifiable view of the divine than theistic absolutism. The leaders of both the French and American revolutions were influenced by this fashion philosophy of its own time. According to deism God is a person who created the universe, set it in motion (as an Aristotelian prime mover), and subsequently left it alone; natural events occur naturally without divine intervention, there is no supernatural providence over the creation, nor is there any supernatural divine revelation. This concept avoids the pitfalls of theodicy; of course there is evil in the world because God is not present nor has anything to do with anything in the entire creation. 3. Theopanism God is conceived not separate from the universe. Pantheism and panentheism are examples of theopanism. Giordano Bruno presented an idea about an infinite but immanent God. The Catholic Church preferred another view and burned him at stake in 1600. In 1675 Baruch Spinoza in his Ethics popularized pantheism. Pantheism has been embraced by many thinkers and even American presidents. William Herndon, Abraham Lincoln’s law partner wrote: Mr. Lincoln’s religion is too well known to me to allow of even a shadow of a doubt; he is or was a Theist & a Rationalist, denying all extraordinary – supernatural inspiration or revelation. At one time in his life, to say the least, he was an elevated Pantheist, doubting the immortality of the soul as the Christian world understands that term. Panentheism, the view that God includes the universe in God’s being and that it extends beyond the universe, is embraced by many modern thinkers, notably Jesus Seminar scholar Marcus Borg. Westar Fall 2014 Tarkki: Hylotheism 23 4.